Is a Quad Core REALLY Beneficial for Gaming?

Just wondering if there is any real inherent advantage to having a quad core over dual core for current generation of games (i.e. to be released this year)?

 

For GTA4, L4D, and demanding RTS games like supreme commander you will see the difference. I do think a Q9000 is too low clocked to consider over a 9600 or 9800, but a QX9300 is no doubt the king...

 

Most, not really. They are starting to take more advantage though. I think the first game to actually take advantage of quad-core over dual-core is Supreme Commander. There have been a few since then, but it's in no way the majority.

I would still say that if you are a big multi-tasker, then a quad-core might be beneficial. If not though, a faster dual-core would be better, and that's probably majority of people.

 

Well, I guess there are two ways to look at this...

1. A game is optimized to use multiple cores
Very few games can take advantage of two cores, let alone four. While games are moving towards being able to use multiple cores, it hasn't become mainstream yet. I don't think quad cores are going to provide a big, if any, performance boost clock-for-clock over dual core processors in the next year.
No advantage

2. You are runnng multiple programs simultaneously with your games
In this case, having a quad core does have advantage over dual core, since your other programs can use the unused cores of your CPU. Having a quad core allows for more programs being able to run in parallel, instead of all using the same core.
Advantage.

 

Obviously Crash said exactly what I had in mind...

Any game that can use multiple cores and using multiple programs + your game/games without slowing down vs dual core (or SOLO core... which is hopefully extinct )

 

search for some reviews of cpus, they usually compare duals and quads in some gaming benches. they are all benched at xga or sxga.
but what i have observed is that as long as you dont game at 1280*1024 and really like your frame rates over 60, quad or dual core doesn't make a difference at all. 99% of the time, your gpu will be maxed out, rarely, the cpu will bottle neck the gpu, but in that case, you are probably seeing more than 60fps which is a waste.

 

Oviously, more cores,more power,more speed.

 

Quad-cores are 99% useless in today's games.

 

He's asking about future performance.

 

i went from a t9400 at 2.8ghz to a qx9300 at 3.2ghz and its amazing how much better GTA4 and farcry 2 run....farcry might run better though because i just have the core speed higher than the t9400's

 

True, but unfortunately in the notebook scene, unless you want to spend a ton, the only real affordable quad is the Q9000, which is only a 2ghz with low cache. It's a bit more complicated then the desktop market

 

That's what I figured. But even with Vista don't you still have to manually adjust which programs run on which core?

I would hope that Windows 7 would have some automatic load leveling.

 

Windows Vista itself is optimized to utilize multiple-cores, but whether individual programs have multi-core support depends on the program; support for multiple cores is being implemented into more and more programs (outside of games), though.

 

So Vista will place apps in one core or the other automatically then to balance the load? I don't see that usually. It's one core or the other maxed out, and have to manually move one app to the other core.

 

No. There has been many articles on this and they all show that current games do not benefit from it. Quad core is still something new and isn't mainstream yet, so it makes sense that development is taking its time.

As you were probably expecting, the next generation should support it when quad cores become more mainstream.

 

When I go from 2.4 GHz to 3.2 GHz on my Q6600 I see a 4 FPS boost in GTA IV. This is the 'after', it's 38 FPS at 2.4 GHz.

Statistics
Average FPS: 42.33
Duration: 37.16 sec
CPU Usage: 61%
System memory usage: 63%
Video memory usage: 92%

Graphics Settings
Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz)
Texture Quality: High
Render Quality: Highest
Reflection Resolution: Very High
Water Quality: Very High
Shadow Quality: Very High
View Distance: 35
Detail Distance: 100

 

If you are going to get a Quad Core laptop you might as well get one clocked from 2.5 - 3.0 Ghz otherwise those games that use dual core may suffer performance loss at just 2.0 Ghz.

I think Quad Core clocked at a high rate, although expensive will definitely be future proof with more games needing to use more cores due to increased complexity and depth. Just take a look at GTA IV and the huge amount of things going on in the engine and the AI.

 

http://www.geocities.com/edgemeal_software/SetAffinity/index.htm

If you have a QC CPU that program is awesome for setting up which programs use which core, I've used it on both Dual and Quadcore cpu's with great results.

 

I thought the consensus was that it is better to have a fast dual core cpu than a slow quad core one?

 

For most games, yes.

And this is probably especially true for laptops. At least for desktops though, it's getting pretty even between speeds of dual core and quad-core CPU's, the only difference being in price.

 

I don't quite understand all this about "future performance". Can't you just upgrade the CPU in a year or two. I mean if you just save a little money and get a plain old dual which atm is faster in most games to a lower clocked quad core and just buy a quad when the time is right.

Seems like its just cheaper that way.

 

lol if a game is optimized for dual core its 50% useless

most games are not quad core optimized

 

Future proofing doesn't work. (High end) CPU prices don't drop. Just look at a T9500 or T7800, etc. I agree though, if you need a laptop now, a fast dual is the way to go.

 

Unless you're an FPS or RTS nut there will probably be no noticeable difference between a fast dual-core and slow quad-core configuration, maybe this might change in 1-2 years as developers start making more and more multi-threaded games.

 

A T9400 is clocked at 2.53GHz, not 2.8GHz.

 

And a QX9300 is clocked at 2.53 Ghz as well. He's merely saying that he had his T9400 overclocked to 2.8 Ghz, and the QX9300 overclocked to 3.2 Ghz.

 

I guess the right semantics would be the additional 2 cores on a Quad over a Core2 would be 99% useless.

 

Why not Dual Core CPU with Quad Core GPU ?
Wouldn't be better than Quad core cpu with dual core gpu
for GAMING ?

 

I think quad core is the best decision at this time, especially if there is good potential to OC the Q9000. Just look at the new ASUS W90, getting Q9000 OCs up to 2.5-6 Ghz, and that's a built-in, developer approved OC tool. There are more and more games becoming available with quad core support, and one of the PC's dominant genres, the RTS, is taking advantage of it as well.

People say you can't future proof, but how many dual core laptops have support for a true quad core conversion, at a reasonable price? If you want to wait around for the quad cores like the QX9300 or 9100 to drop in price, that's cool, but if you want a laptop now, I'd recommend going with the quad if you have the money, unless you're so set that gaming is your sole use for the laptop that you know you won't need it.

 

...there are other uses for laptops besides gaming??

 

No such thing as a quad core GPU, desktops only have 3-core GPUs at present let alone notebooks.

 

3-core? Most I've heard of are the 4870x2 and GTX295... but those are 2-core video cards. Unless you're talking about some workstation video card.

You can Crossfire or SLI those cards respectively though, that makes for 4-cores of graphic processing power.

They could technically do something like that on a laptop, make a 2-core GPU, but I doubt that will be happening anytime soon, especially considering they are chopping the space requirement to like a quarter of a normal high-end video card.

 

The games are GPU limited rather than CPU limited. The game is almost 80% depended on gpu cores rather than CPU quad cores.

 

A 3GHz QX9300 is going to take you a very long ways into the future in terms of gaming performance. Like everybody has stated, more and more games are utilizing quads for higher performance. GTA IV is the CPU king, like Cysis is the GPU king. Having a high clocked quad will go much further. Synthetic benchmarks also love quads, so if you are like me and fight over the highest 3dm score, that will give you a good advantage.

One way of looking at the performance difference in multithreaded apps is to simply mulitply your core freq by x2 or x4 and it gives you a very rough idea of how much you're pushing though a fully utilized cpu. my 3.5ghz duo = 7, vs a 3ghz quad = 12.

 

Yea, for GTAIV and games that take use of it a quadcore is much better. Especially the i7 = D.

Someone up there said L4D takes use of quad core. Are you sure? tbh left for dead isn't a demanding game at all, its like HL2/CSS, with some more shaders and lots of models.

 

GTA IV is the only game I would say "needs" a quad-core simply because it's so badly optimized. Crysis would benefit from one as it's quite a CPU dependent game for higher framerates. If you want to hit a consistent 60 FPS with max settings, you'll probably need a quad-core. Also if you're into messing with the CryEngine 2.0 Sandbox, you might want it too as crazy physics videos need all the CPU power you can give it

 

Your gpu will be outdated by the time quad becomes really beneficial. And then duo will not exist like single cores (excluding the atom),

 

Games that utilize quad cores well:

Flight Simulator X Gold
Supreme Commander
GTA IV
Valve Games
HellGate: London
Bioshock
Company of Heroes
Crysis series (Yes, it really does use 4 cores)
Far Cry 2
Lost Planet
Rainbow Six Vegas
Source Engine
Splinter Cell Double Agent
STALKER
Stranglehold
Unreal Engine 3

And if Alan Wake ever comes out, it supposed to take advantage of up to 8 cores. I kinda have a feeling they are waiting for more hardware support to come out before they announce the release.

 

Nice list emike, although from what I remember about STALKER, it SAID it would take advantage of multiple cores, yet didn't really... maybe Clear Sky is better in that regard, because I'm remembering from when the original one came out.

 

For me Id say so. I multitask while gaming so having 2 extra cores for background processes, and everything else I'm doing will allow me to do more then I already can comfortably. Plus I'm a big RTS guy outside of WoW.

 

TF2 now also many people here say it helped them get the fps they needed not to dip into low frame rates in big fights.

Though I am under the impression that TF2 was only 1 thread before, so even a dual core user benefited from the recent multicore patch.

 

many of those games make SOME usage of all four cores, but def does not fully use all four cores....during most of the games listed...my quad is like 50% used across all 4 cores.....thats not using it IMO..GTA4 is another story, however....now if crysis could use more cpu, i think it would run much better. Crysis WH uses about 40% of my quad....a fast dual is best for most games but that will change soon so quad is def the way to go

 

In the future a Quad may be a very good option but if you are buying a new laptop in the coming months and you get for example a 2.0 Ghz Quad Core (Q9000) then you might as well just be getting a 2.0 Ghz Core Duo (which few gamers would buy on purpose) since the majority of games will only take advantage of a Dual Core.

The only way I would buy a Quad is if it was clocked to at least 2.5 - 2.8 Ghz and in that case you would be using the Desktop Cores in a laptop chassis (for the moment) further reducing the potential of any decent battery life.

I would be very interested to hear gaming performance from anyone who has a Quad Core Qx9000 2.0 Ghz paired with a high end GPU since this is one of the custom options of my new laptop purchase. It would also be interesting comparing that to a Core Duo.

 

The Qx9300 is actually a 2.53 stock, easily overclockable to 3.33+.

 

the qx9300 while expensive is a current option for a 2.53ghz quad thats not a desktop chip. whats important is that most laptops that have quads are perforrmance laptops and they include some sort of overclocking functions, so your not stuck with the lower clock speeds.

The other important thing is the games that are very heavy on the cpu like the ones that demand a quad (FSX, Supreme Commander) are going to work on the quad and not the dual, while the ones that run on the dual will atleast run decent on the quad even if not as good as the dual.

Im sure there are going to be a few games that 2ghz quad is not going to play too well with, but not that many and once you overclock it should take care of all of them.

Im not going to complain, I do not game a whole lot and I multi task a lot and plan to render video and stuff, the quad is going to be very nice to have and if the q9000 is not good enough I'll grab a better cpu off ebay.

 

I plan on personally throwing a QX9300 into my M17 when I get home from Iraqistan.

 

Very interesting points. I am still debating between a Nexus 2.0 Ghz Q9000 and a 2.93 Ghz Core Duo (GTX260M) for gaming only. I didn't realise that there were any higher clocked mobile Quads. I want to keep to a 15'' screen / chassis though.

I have just noticed that Novatech has a 17'' Intel Core i7 940 8MB Cache Quad Core 64 Bit Processor in their latest X90 GTX.

 

Oh, wait - by 'not work', are you saying these games require a quad, and are unplayable on a dual? I've never heard that before...

Now, if you're saying you may get some better performance, i can see that if the game's optimized - but I find it hard to believe that the game requires a quad. Of course, I could be wrong - ask my wife, she documents all the occasions when I am....

 

On behalf of ViciousXUSMC, I'll answer. He said "demands" a quad, not require it. They are very CPU heavy apps, but on that note support multiple cores, so if you do have the luxury of a quad core, it should improve performance.

 

Ah, gotcha - thanks! I was confused by the 'demands' part.... (but, then, I'm easily confused!)